Talk:Chemical restraint

NPOV Issues

The reason I put the NPOV tag on this article is because this seems entirely biased and one-sided. The article is overwhelmingly against ANY chemical restraint use, which is not reflective of medical opinion on the matter. It seems to go so far as to suggest it is not an accepted procedure, despite the fact that it has many indications for it's use (http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/109717). It also seems to suggest that it is unacceptably more dangerous than physical restraint alone, which has been shown not to be the case (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23360650). This article has even gone so far as to leave out key portions of source information that changes the implication of the text not consistent with the original context, such as "...individuals have the right to be free from physical or chemical restraints imposed for purposes of discipline or convenience and not required to treat the resident’s medical symptoms" [Emphasis Mine] I will attempt to rewrite this article when I have the time to bring it into line with the current medicolegal aspects of chemical restraints as well as attempt to explain any underlying cause for controversy. If someone wants to take a crack at it in the meanwhile, have at it. WarwulfX (talk) 05:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Made an initial rewrite to some information presented. I removed the medications that were specifically named in favor or the drug class name for the sake of berevity. I've also removed the contradictory section that read "Haldol doesn't have as many bad side effects, except for death" (more or less). Side effects are covered in the articles on drug/class. This seems to bring this article a little closer to NPOV. Not fully happy with it just yet, but it has added balance. WarwulfX (talk) 07:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Point of view is crucial to this article. A doctor would argue the patient is "psychotic" and needs "antipsychotics" when both words "psychotic" and "antipsychotic" are figurative. There is no psychotic molecule, virus or bacteria in physical actuality, in the patient. Psychotic is an euphemism for being angry and stupid at the same time, that is all.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 14:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)edited--Mark v1.0 (talk) 13:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

No, psychosis is defined as a mental health condition where you lose touch with reality. That might make you angry, though it's more likely to simply make you scared, and it doesn't make you stupid, it makes you ill. Since the whole condition hinges upon how well you're processing objective reality (at least compared to healthy people), it's not really a point of view issue. Xmoogle (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

"It seems to go so far as to suggest it is not an accepted procedure, despite the fact that it has many indications for it's use" - i've included cited references about the indications for use of chemical restraint. "It also seems to suggest that it is unacceptably more dangerous than physical restraint alone, which has been shown not to be the case" - this issue is specifically addressed in some of the advice i've added. I think I've addressed this, so I'm going to remove npov. --Talpedia (talk) 19:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chemical restraint. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160309182218/https://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/pub/chap814e.htm to http://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/pub/chap814e.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:46, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Chemical restraint and law enforcement

Locally a news release today (7 Feb 2018) details a dramatic encounter with an uncooperative and possibly drugged out individual who was first physically restrained and then administered "chemical restraints". Olympia fire, medic and police personnel were all part of the encounter. After medics administered the unidentified drug(s) the individual stopped breathing and died. This is to highlight that chemical restraints are used outside of medical facilities including in law enforcement. I expect that this will lead to news, citizen, and political discussion about how frequently this is done -- the neighborhood discussion pages are very fired up. The article will need to be updated to discuss CR in law enforcement. GeeBee60 (talk) 09:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

References

Chemical Restrain Controversy (Cont.)

Hi!

I plan to add info regarding the recent controversy around chemical restraint. I noticed another wikipedian mentioned this issue, and I think adding more information on the topic is necessary. Feel free to go to my sandbox for info on how I plan to add to the article, as well as some of the references I plan to use.MCJones20 (talk) 03:38, 30 September 2020 (UTC)